Thanks once again to Coupfourpointfive, this time for publishing the address Prof. Brij Lal would have given to the Accountants' Conference had Government not decreed otherwise. Its publication by at least two blogs supports a point made in his speech: “The whole exercise of controlling speech is futile and self-defeating.” To read the full address on the topic of ‘Fiji and the International Community: Acceptance or Isolation: Are these the only choices?’ click here.
Summary
On Fiji's relations with the international community, his main points were: Fiji cannot go it alone; Australia, the EU and New Zealand want to help but need evidence of “progress” from Fiji; China's interests in Fiji are limited. “Many initiatives contemplated by the interim administration [IG] are praiseworthy, and I have no doubt that there would be a meeting of minds on many of them. That is why there is an urgent need of tact and diplomacy.”
He thought the situation had deteriorated sharply since April 10th The Constitution has gone. The political dialogue process has ceased. “There is now no pretence about finding a solution to Fiji’s political problems in a timely fashion, in consultation with its friends in the regional and the international community. Fiji is now telling the world: we will find solutions to Fiji’s problems on our own terms, in our own time …. we are the guys who are on the right side of history; we are doing the right thing; why doesn’t the world understand us? “
On where Fiji should go from here, he said elections must be held earlier than 2014 if Fiji is to win international support. He agrees that elections alone will not solve Fiji's problems but asks what kind of political culture the Government want to create. He says a non-racial electoral system will not remove race as a factor in politics. He thinks the military want a permanent place in politics, and that their “utopia” will delay elections long after 2014. He says the Government should spell out what is wrong with the 1997 Constitution. He thought the Constitution’s compulsory power-sharing provision addressed “the most fundamental problem that has beset Fiji since the inception of party politics in 1966” in that it enabled one community, the Indo-Fijians, to share power. He said the Constitution was partly based on “‘Consociationalism … a grand coalition of elites representing different segments of society...”
My Comments
Brij blames the deteriorating situation on the Interim Government alone. No mention is made of the role of Australia and NZ, the Fiji media, the “Qarase” faction, and others who constantly placed obstructions in the IG's path.
Elections are not held to satisfy the international community. Fiji will only hold elections (hopefully before 2014) when the system under which they are to be held is decided upon, and when race has been removed as the factor. The Government has made quite clear the “political culture” it wants to create.
Brij continues to see Fiji's problems in purely racial terms. The 1997 Constitution was an improvement on the decidedly racist 1991 Constitution, but the Great Council of Chief's provision, the reinforcement of race by its electoral provisions, and the parliamentary “power sharing” provision effectively deprived Fiji of a parliamentary Opposition, need revisiting. True, future modifications were expected, but none occurred in the next ten years. His “grand coalition of elites” is based on racial “segments of society.” Fiji is, and can be, “segmented” in many more ways.
I do, however, share Brij's and many other people's concern about the never-ending role of the military in Fiji's politics. I also sometimes doubt their real intentions but, for the moment, they have the benefit of my doubt.
In sum, Brij warns of everything that has, and can, go wrong. Wisely so, perhaps, but we already know most of them. He supports an agenda rejected by the Interim government. I would like him to have proposed some new ideas on the “way forward.” Perhaps a hypothetical redrafting of the 1997 Constitution, with the benefit of hindsight, or the drafting of a new Constitution that would win wide support? Photo: Fiji Times.
4 comments:
No mention is made of the role [in the deteriorating situation] of Australia and NZ, the Fiji media, the “Qarase” faction, and others who constantly placed obstructions in the IG's path.
This is a specious argument: the IG never had any legitimate claim to power to begin with; so to say that opposition to their illegal moves caused the problems is foolishness. The methods the IG have chosen to employ to are the root of the problem: not opposition to such.
In any case, since when is anyone with their hand in the public purse entitled to an opposition-less advancement of their agenda?
The Government has made quite clear the “political culture” it wants to create.
Nonsense! Your post on the extension of the PER was more erudite on this matter. The only preference shown so far is for the exclusion of 'politics' from the national agenda in favour of a gathering of yay-sayers.
I also find it curious that you have chosen not to comment on Lal's enumeration of the incessant (and inconsistent) changes in the regime's cause célèbre.
... when race has been removed as the factor.
Insistence that 'race' can be worked out of the system by a bit of legislating around the issue is novel.
Barring all other considerations, when 83% of a country's land is owned by and inalienable from one ethic group, that raises serious political and economic questions that require more than a bit of constitutional re-jigging.
I would think that the nature of Maori politics in your own back yard might give you some insight into the difficulties born of marrying race, land and politics.
Sorry, Alterego. This time I must disagree with you on all counts.
1. Legitimacy is one thing; making the situation worse is another.
2. Hands in public purse? Examples?
3. Changes in political agenda. I see it as a logical evolution.
4. Racism out, not race. Race pushed off electoral centre stage. Other things being done, e.g., multi-lingualism. No claim for instant success. Land use is the problem, not ownership per se.
5. NZ Fiji. Major historical and demographic differences. Only superficial relevance.
What I really don't understand is your view, Croz, that Australia and NZ have placed obstacles in the way of Fiji. How? Surely, Fiji is internally able to ignore the outside pressure/interference and simply get on with sorting things out. If the regime wants to build consensus, then why does it not simply proceed to do so? Surely it can ignore the external actions of Australia and New Zealand and simply get on with it. And if the leadership gets nowhere fast, then it will (again) surely be down to its inability to build consensus. It's all too easy to blame Australia and New Zealand for the lack of progress in the country which, surely, must be down to the leadership being unable to build consensus?
In response to two of your brief comments to Alterego’s posting:
1 ‘Legitimacy is one thing, making the situation worse is another’
Regarding your comment about the obstructive role of Australia and New Zealand (and presumably the EU?), the Fiji media, the Qarase faction and others. If we accept that an illegal act has taken place (and by virtue of the Appeal Court judgement we are compelled to do so) then it is advisable for a society to at least show dissent in some form. To do otherwise could cause that society to run the risk of legitimising the future use of force by any aggrieved group that wishes express its disfavour about government policies.
In my view the acquiescence (for whatever reason) of the Fiji public to past coups has led, in itself, to the establishment of the coup culture that we read so much about. The most effective deterrent against a coup is the sheer psychological enormity of such an act confronting those that might contemplate it. That taboo, having been broken, must now be restored and this will take more than the new legislation proposed by the Military Council. It takes an overarching condemnation by all sectors of society.
Your use of the word ‘faction’ when describing Mr Qarase’s supporters is interesting since it seems to attempt to portray the last coalition government as a minority within a larger group. Whatever Machiavellian reasoning caused Mr Chaudhry to think he was leader of the opposition whilst at the same time being part of government, Mr Beddoes was, legally, the sole member of the opposition. Mr Qarase’s ‘faction’ was therefore the majority of the government.
2 ‘Hands in the public purse’
An example is Mr Bainimarama’s award to himself of a virtually career-long back payment of nearly 30 years holiday pay at 2009 pay rates. This is a situation that would be unique in Fiji government employee awards, were it not for the fact that several other military officers benefitted in a similar way.
However I’m sure that the questionable decision to pay out Mr Bainimarama is not the only valid reason for using that expression. It also means use of public money to espouse military council points of view at the UN, in Geneva, in Brussels and elsewhere. Points of view which have not been debated in parliament or even in the public realm.
Post a Comment